You are on page 1of 22

No.

14- ___________

In
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
__________
Cody Robert Judy
Plaintiff- Appellant
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA aka BARRY SOETORO , DNC ,
ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION et al.,
Defendant(s), Appellee.
_______________________________
Appeal from the FINAL JUDGEMENT of the United States District Court
Utah Division, Honorable Ted Stewart
Originating as Case No. 1:14cv00093

Cody Robert Judy
Attorney Pro Se
3031 So. Ogden Ave. Suite #2
Ogden, Utah 84401
PH: 801-4xx-xxxx Email: codyjudy@hotmail.com

1

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
This statement is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1. Plaintiffs Appellants are individuals. Among the plaintiffs there are no corporate entities, subsidiaries or
affiliates that have issued shares to the public.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Cover Title Page……………………………………………..Pg.1
Corporate Disclosure……………………………………..Pg.2
Table of Content…………………………………………….Pg.2
Table of Authorities ………………………………………..Pg.2
Appendix …………………………………………………………Pg22
Statement of the jurisdiction ……………………………Pg.4
Statement of the case ……………………………………..Pg.4
Statement of the issues …………………………………..Pg 5
Legal Argument ……………………………………………….Pg.7-20
Dismissal No Basis in Law or Reality………………..Pg. 8
Summary…………………………………………………………pg. 18
Conclusion and Request ………………………….........Pg.19
Certificate Word Count…………………………………….pg 21
Certificate of Mailing……………………………………….pg 21

2

Table of Authorities
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION REFERENCE
United States Constitution Article I., Sect. 2, clause 2…….pg 13
United States Constitution Article I., Sect. 3, clause 4…….pg 13
United States Constitution Article II., Sect. 1, clause 5….. pg 13
United States Constitution Article II. Sect. 4…………………..pg 11
United States Constitution Article III. Sect. 1………………….pg 6
United States Constitution Article III. Sect. 2………………….pg 6
U.S.C. First Amendment…………………………………………………pg 9
ACTS OF CONGRESS REFERENCE
The U.S. Judiciary Act, the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, F.R.C.P, F.R.C.P, F.R.E.P, F.R.A.P
…………………………………………………………………………..pg 10
U.S. Code Section 1654 title 28…………………………..pg 9
Civil Rights §1983……………………………………………….pg 7
28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) (i) , (iii)……………………………pg 10
Clayton Act of Congress 1914……………………………pg 7,12
Sherman Act 1890 §1. of Congress……………………pg 7,10,12
CASE LAWS REFERENCE
Crews v. Willows Unified School District 2013 WL 3788574……pg 7
Jackson v. Duval No. L-3799-11…………………………………………….pg 8
Judy v. McCain………………………………………………………………………..pg 13,17
Judy v. Obama 133 S. Cr. 2012………………………………………………..pg 13
Judy v. Obama 133. S.Cr. 2013………………………………………………..pg 13
Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162 ……….....................................pg 12
3

Statement of Jurisdiction
Tenth (10) Circuit has jurisdiction as this is an appeal of the Final Order of the U.S. District Court
Utah Division
Statement of Jurisdiction of the District Court
The U.S. District court has jurisdiction as it involves Civil Rights /Federal Issues of U.S.C/ ACTs of
Congress

Statement of the Case
In the first instance this Case does not involve removal of Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry
Soetoro from the Office of the President as under the Constitution that is the duty of Congress
in regards to ineligibility of persons in the Office of President and Vice President. Congress
however does not have the duty of asserting damages to the Civil Rights of a Presidential
Candidate due to another’s ineligibility and this case simply involves asserting damages done to
Mr. Judy/ and his Campaign vehicle done by Mr. Obama’s Campaign vehicle ultimately formed
by corporations acting as an illegal cartel by illegal activity resulting in damages to Plaintiff
noticed in Court in the Plaintiff’s filings as a Default that should have been recognized and
granted. *Denials coming in Memorandum’s and Orders (8-26-14) & (9-16-14)]. After damages

4

are assessed, validated to a standard of law, and awarded it then becomes the duty of Congress
to act on that information if they are inclined to. In a denial of the Certificate of Default and
recognition of service in the immediate instance from the U.S. District Court (8-26-14) & (9-1614) comes a Memorandum Decision (10-7-14) assessing the Complaint as frivolous, irrational,
wholly incredible and inserts the actions of the Defendants/Appellee’s are basically immune
from the United States Constitution, Law Enforcement Advisory Reports of criminal wrong
doing, and statutes governing corporations from illegal cartels choking out fair competition
under rules governing such applicable to the Presidential Race/Contest in first refusal to
recognize Appellants service upon Appellee’s, second refusing to recognize three witnesses
certifying that service under oath, and third refusing to issue Plaintiff a Certificate of Default
and Judgment due properly according to Federal Rules of Procedure, and then finally adding
insult to injury by refusing to serve Defendants according to some mythical procedure Plaintiff
was somehow deficient in and opting instead as a form of covering tracks or sweeping the dirt
under the carpet, issuing a memorandum in support of the Final Judgment dismissing the Claim
as frivolous after four months of legal proceedings the Court actually in its memorandum
denies or refuses as facts of reality completely, other than to recognize them on the docket.

Statement of the Issues
The issues of this case involves an abuse of the Courts own discretion using its dismissal powers
in calling a Civil Rights Claim and violation of Acts of Congress with real damages ‘frivolous’ and
strikes at the heart of justice basically ignoring the damage of accidents where any
responsibility can be claimed by a victim of damages for justice in reliable Acts of Congress and
5

the U.S.C., by the Judiciary set apart in U.S.C. Art. III. Sect. 1. & Sect 2. , used as standards of law
for the assessment of an award against persons/corporations at fault, as well as striking a blow
at official law enforcement investigations as expert witnesses. In short on Appeal is a trial of the
truth.
At issue is the cold hearted perpetration of criminal wrongdoing or actions of maliciousness
being given the wink-wink by those in seats of authority; Federal Rules of Service of Process
being violated by the Court’s refusal to recognize a validated witnessed and proof of and in a
‘Return of Service’ and ‘Affidavit’, actually getting out of its seat of judgment to act as an
attorney for the Defendants because the defendants/Appellee’s failed to answer the Courts
own demanded 20 Day Summons to file an answer or judgment by default would be taken
against them as is stated in the 20 Day Court issued Summons.
1) Did the court issue 20 Day Summons (yes) 2) Did the Court send Plaintiff the 20 Day
Summons they issued? Yes. 3) Did the Defendant’s/Appellee’s have a person qualified to accept
service for them accept service? Yes. 4) Did the person issuing the “Return of Service” actually
witness this all was done according to Service Requirements? Yes. 5) Did Defendants/Appellees
file an answer before the 20 Day Summons expired? No. 6.) Is Plaintiff due a Default Judgment?
Yes.
If all of the above aforementioned is thrown out the window, does the Court have a duty
to serve the complaint for an Informa Pauperis Plaintiff according to the request of the
Plaintiff/Appellant for proper service when damages have occurred, laws have been broken,
and a standard of law the Court is suppose to uphold is demanded by a Plaintiff? Are the
6

Defendant’s/ Appellee’s immune from any proper procedure in federal
courts/elections/qualifications of candidates/ or responsibility to the U.S.C. according to oaths
they are bound to for their jobs? Does the Court recognize a Sheriff’s Law Enforcement
Investigation as legitimate and assert responsibility for the information contained therein as a
standard of violation or criminal wrong-doing and under proper statute reported to it, bury it,
or act in and for justice? Does the Judicial Branch have any function in trial or Justice based
upon the United States Constitution left or has it become in the instance a Branch of some
other standard Plaintiff/Appellant is unaware of, like a FISA Court with a presumed social
agenda rather than a Republic’s Constitution upholding individual’s rights?
Legal Argument against Case as Frivolous or Malicious

A review of the U.S. Court’s Memorandum states a case is frivolous where it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or fact. Appellant has more than fulfilled requirements reporting to the Court
lawfully under legal statute awarding him that right under the §1983 Civil Rights Act, Anti-Trust
Laws of Sherman Act, and Clayton Act, the legal findings of a Sheriff’s respectable investigation
by dually acting law enforcement officials, and damages done to him/and Campaign. Will the
Court now deny police/sheriff/and all law enforcement reports as wholly incredible? Crews v.
Willows Unified School District 2013 WL 3788574 reversed finding of CA. Third District Court
Appeal. Appeals Court found PRA petition lacked merit but was not frivolous and for a PRA
action to be frivolous, it must be “totally and completely without merit” or “for the sole
purpose of harassing an opposing party”. That reversal was due to the Appeals Court findings

7

that ‘arguments on the merits were sufficiently meritorious to cause the trial court to examine
the documents in camera.’
If Appellant has a law enforcement agency reporting crimes he is the victim to and the Court
deems that frivolous how safe is the public? In the U.S. Courts three memorandums all denying
Plaintiff his rights repeatedly is a particularly telling statement which clearly identifies insult to
the Appellant, and that is the repeated logic of the amount of the award of “$40,000,000.00.”
In the Court’s experience are elections cheap? Maybe the better question is why the District
Court didn’t recognize that under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act discretion of the damages is
actually inserted there for the Court of up to $100,000,000.00 meaning violators of the Act are
subject to the Court’s discretion. Is the Court able to fine a violator of the Sherman Act and
Clayton Act $100 dollars per statute? Why does the Memorandum of the Court in this final
decision mock Plaintiff’s damages without knowledge of this discretion? Congress has given the
Court the statute and should the U.S. District Court mock Congress as well in the
$100,000,000.00 or $40,000,000.00 language as a discretional statute given? Recently reversed
was an appeal for frivolous sanctions New Jersey Jackson v. Duval No. L-3799-11 on Appeal
from Superior Court ‘March 4th 2013 certification established facts on which a reasonable jury
could conclude that defendants resided in the home during the relevant period and are
responsible for damages, and established plaintiff’s reasonable basis for filing the civil
complaint’. Damages to Appellant’s Campaign and person are timely and reasonably assessed
to the cause of Defendants actions and Mr. Judy does have a law enforcement report offering
expert testimony.

8

In addressing the Courts’ consideration of ‘Defendant immunity’ the question then must also
dramatically be proposed and assumed that elected members of the U.S. Congress and the U.S.
Senate and also Candidates elected and unelected have the right to do any act quite legally that
the public would call illegal including in the instant case committing fraud, crimes of forgery,
crimes of voter fraud, crimes of election fraud, crimes against the Constitution, indeed sedition
and treason no longer could apply to anyone associated with the election process of the United
States of America. Damages the Court seem to mock don’t mount to the salary of a NBA (Kobe
Bryant 23 Million/yr) or NFL Player (Aaron Rodgers 22 Million/yr.) for a couple of years and
certainly merit in behalf of the American Public’s national security should be taken into
consideration as more important. Damages to the public trust that amount to the wages of a
musical artist with a top musical hit, or in comparison just one of Hollywood blockbuster movies
in a successful opening weekend are said to be more important than the security of We the
People’s trust and that trust the public gives to secure our national security and our Republics
elections.
DISMISSAL NO BASIS IN LAW OR REALITY STANDARD
To substantiate the District Court’s Judgment of Appellant’s Law Suit being placed in the
frivolous category is first to deny the SERVICE OF PROCESS, and the Default legally claimed by
the Plaintiff. Appellant is thusly asking the Court to first look at the SERVICE OF PROCESS that
was legally performed and witnessed by three witnesses, and then consider the Default due the
Plaintiff, and then consider the duty of the the U.S. District Court to serve the Plaintiff by
request of the Plaintiff owing the Courts unwillingness to serve and then review to dismiss the
Complaint as frivolous. Plaintiff senses a maliciousness in the Court’s Memorandum on the
9

basis it would make more sense to review or screen the complaint before granting the ‘Informa
Pauperis’ motion and request to proceed without cost, and further that with no less than three
other Court Orders and Memorandums on (8-26-14),(9-9-14),(9-16-14), rather than waste the
time of the Plaintiff and the Court from July 10 th, 2014 to Oct 7,2014 before the complaint was
screened as the U.S. District included in the Tenth Circuit findings pg. 2 of the 10-7-14
Memorandum- “Tenth Circuit has provided the following guidance for evaluating whether an in
forma pauperis complaint states a claim for relief:”
The U.S. District Court to dismiss a complaint as frivolous must provide evidence that the
Plaintiff has not suffered any damages in reality, that the Defendant’s have either not been a
party to the damages substantiated, or in their actions that nothing criminally or maliciously
has in reality happened to the Plaintiff at all to which responsibility can be assigned, and that
the laws that Plaintiff has assumed to be in violation by the Defendant’s actions do not or
cannot be assumed to defend the Plaintiff in the action in order to state frivolousness.
Indeed the Court must properly dismiss any actual legal claim for damages by law or the reality
of the facts presented by the Plaintiff. The court cannot simple rely on the percentages or the
“probability of success” being low because Plaintiff is a pro se litigant, propria persona, for this
represents a discrimination to a class of the legal rights to represent oneself either out of
poverty or out of some other necessity wholly protected by law in not only the First
Amendment and violations of U.S. Code Section 1654 title 28 providing, “ in all courts of the
United States the parties may plead and conduct their cases personally or by counsel as, by the
rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein.” , also

10

supported by The U.S. Judiciary Act, the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, F.R.C.P, F.R.C.P,
F.R.E.P, F.R.A.P.
The Judicial Council admonishes the need of the Judiciary to act in the interest of fairness to
self-represented litigants using a justification that Judges are charged with ascertaining the
truth, not just playing referee. A law suit is not a game, where the party with the cleverest
lawyer, or Judge for that matter in this case, prevails regardless of merit. Indeed Utah Judicial
Council reports that in 2006 for divorce cases, 49% percent of petitioners and 81% of
respondents are self represented.
In the Memorandum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2) (i) asserts Plaintiff fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted. (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief” Plaintiff has not sued Pelosi, Reid, or Obama in their official capacities
of office but rather in their actions in the Democratic Party (DNC) and Campaign Corporations
(OFA) to which their ‘election’ in other offices of Government has no basis or quote unquote
protections based on qualified immunity of holding an elected office. Could either one of these
three holding elected offices for instance be cited a traffic ticket or be cited for any
misdemeanor or felony of an assault? Indeed the U.S.C. describes the event as U.S.C. Art. II.
Sect. 4 [ The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from office on impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors’. + Immunity of Office does not apply to Corporations.
This presumes that the ‘Immunity’ suggested by the U.S. District Court in its “10-7-14
Memorandum” is not applicable in the criminal activity actually reported to the Court in
11

suggestion of prosecution according to the ability exercised by the Plaintiff’s original complaint
pg. 17 (6) ‘Anti-trust laws were developed to control economic power in the public interest, not
excluding the economic power in the political fields of interest of the Republic. Sherman Act
1890 § 1 ‘Every contract combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in
restraint of trade or commerce amongst the Several States or with foreign nations is illegal.
Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination of conspiracy hereby
declared illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction shall be punished by a fine
not exceeding $100,000,000; If a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000 or by
imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments in the direction of the
Court. Plaintiff is well within his rights to bring a criminal complaint to the Court’s attention for
judgment under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act asserting a Cartel has been formed involved
in collusive practices, citing the prohibition of the creation of a monopoly and abuse of power,
in anti-trust laws designed to protect the public interest most presumably with big corporations
formed for the protection of personal fortunes, and elections and candidates are not excused
from Corporate laws when corporations are used in them.
The standards of any corporation in an abuse of anti-trust laws are tailored to their specific
interest. For instance with a phone communication industry abuse might be cited as a
monopoly formed by squeezing small businesses out by collecting all needed resources for the
publication of a particular air wave or signal absolutely essential to doing business. We would
not expect the same precious resource to be cited in a complaint of anti-trust laws by a phone
company as we would a tire company needing rubber to survive.

12

Indeed at the heart of all America is the election system and no greater application could really
be brought to the Court’s attention as it effects every person under the protections of the U.S.C
as an umbrella. In holding corporations formed to protect personal fortunes in the political race
of the Presidential contest for instance resources are collected as contributions and donations
to the campaigns. These campaigns have as a particular regulation a set of qualifications that
are meaningful in the ability to actually collect the resource of not only money but votes
essential to survival of fair competition. The standards of the race being fair would not for
instance allow a 16 year old foreign student to enter a U.S. Congressional Race because the
standard or regulation is that candidates for the U.S. House be at least 25 and at least 7 years a
U.S. Citizen, (U.S.C. Art. I. Sect.2 clause 3), and for the U.S. Senate at least 30 years old, and at
least 9 years Citizen of the U.S., (U.S.C. Art. I, Sect. 3 clause 4).
For the Office of the President regulations or qualifications are even higher than U.S.
Representatives and U.S. Senators. Indeed, (U.S.C. Art. II., Sect. I, Clause 5) regulates the office
of the President in qualifications only to those 35 years of age, 14 years a resident, and a Citizen
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Additionally, for those not a Citizen at the time
of the adoption of the Constitution, commonly held as a grandfather clause, candidates must
be a ‘natural born Citizen’ understood in the precedent of Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162
(1875) those expressed as never in doubt as for being natural born Citizens were those ‘Born in
the U.S. to Citizen Parents.’ Though a challenge has never been heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court by one candidate asserting another in the same race as not a ‘natural born Citizen’ in the
election race for the Office of the President the American public must trust that such would not
be taken lightly as the consequences and concerns of national security would prioritize the
13

importance filtering down to every Citizen wither they were qualified for the Office of the
President or not. Even as it is accepted by new immigrant citizens that they are not qualified for
the office of the President, but they may qualify upon age and time conformities for a U.S. Rep.
or U.S. Sen., it is generally agreed that age requirements discriminate wisely and the standard
of the U.S.C. is the Supreme Law of the Land. For the same reasons, the Office of the
President’s qualifications because of an additional responsibility to exercise the position as
Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces is held to a higher standard in all three requirements
or regulations that those involved in the formation of Corporations as Candidates must adhere
to these by law and in the formation of such Corporations must also be held to the standard of
Corporations including the Sherman Act and Clayton Act understood by the oath of a Candidate
for Office to legally qualify if elected.
The identification of a felony or misdemeanor in fact can happen by the actions of any person
at any time regardless of the time in any particular elected Office, and that is certainly not
subject to a statute of limitations because of an elected office. One might suspect though that
one who has standing as far as being in the race for President run over time after time after
time might have a record in Court of objection. Plaintiff fulfills that admonition being a write-in
Candidate with a complaint in Court in Judy v. McCain Las Vegas, Nevada Case No.
2:2008cv01162 dismissed after the election as moot and as a Democratic Party Candidate for
President in Judy v. Obama 133 S.CT. 320 2012 and 133 S. Ct 921-2013 which originated as
ballot challenges coming through New Hampshire’s State Supreme Court and Georgia’s State
Supreme Court. Of course Mr. Judy as a Plaintiff and Appellant has brought his argument to
several in Congress but Congress is a function of majority not practiced in upholding individual
14

rights accept in upholding the Constitution in a general format. Thus, the Judiciary does form an
important part of upholding regulations required in the Constitution and in many instances has
overturned what Congress has passed, as an Act, as Unconstitutional sending actions of
Congress back to square one as a check and balance.
Therefore it should come as no surprise that a Candidate for the Office of the President would
come to the Court with violations of anti-trust laws upon Corporations formed by and behind a
Candidate’s violations of regulations or requirements as qualifications for Office as ‘damage’
quantifiable by law demanding at least compensations regardless of Congress’s ability to
recognize his rights and of course cognizable to violations of the laws so cited.
Indeed, the Court has the duty to look for the truth of the allegations, brought for justice and
access the damages at the bar of judgment. Plaintiff didn’t show up at the bar with just his
allegations that Obama was not a natural born Citizen. He showed up with a Sheriff
Department’s report of crime associated with identification fraud and forgery and is that part of
the complaint ‘frivolous’ or even ‘malicious’ or worse yet ‘delusional’ to the Court’s standards
of expert witnesses? God help us if it is, for no law enforcement agency will again find its way
clear of this case being cited as a legal moral decay of expert testimony associated familiarly
with law enforcement agencies as a general witness to the Courts in criminal proceedings.
In the Court’s DISCUSSION pg. 3 of the 10-7-14 Memorandum Decision, paragraph two cites:
*Plaintiff’s suit centers on Plaintiff’s allegations that President Obama is not a natural-born
citizen eligible to hold the office of the President of the United States. Based on this allegation,
Plaintiff asserts that the DNC and President Obama’s campaign conspired to defraud donors
15

and voters which in turn injured Plaintiff’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns by forcing
Plaintiff to compete unfairly against a candidate who allegedly fails to meet the qualifications of
the Office.] Where indeed are the allegations mentioned by the Plaintiff in any mention of the
I.D. fraud used to substantiate the claim brought up as a Sheriff’s Investigation? The Court
obviously didn’t pay any attention to the Sheriff’s lawful Investigation stating Obama’s long
form birth certificate is a forgery that Obama handed out to the press by his own hand in the
White House Press Core room and posted on the White House web site, and the Sheriff’s
Report that Obama’s draft registration is also fabricated as a forgery constituting fraud.
Indeed, wouldn’t it be true for instance that one bike racing and winning 7 Tour de France bike
races on stimulates unfairly and illegally necessarily caused the others competing in the race to
compete unfairly based on a standard of regulations for the race of not doping? The standard
expressly forbidding doping of illegal drugs actually is a claim upon which relief can be granted
by others in the race to those in charge of assessing damages based on the claim? The Sheriff’s
investigation REPORT is like officials actually taking a urine sample, testing it, and coming up
with a positive drug use. Of course dirty urine or blood test has no value unless a Court
convened decides to use and employ the official testing results and makes a judgment call that
the illegal activity actually was against the rules, unfairly slighting others in a fair race who were
qualified legally, and then regulates a penalty of recompense from the treasury of those who
have benefited.
It was after Lance Armstrong was disqualified from one race that all of his titles were taken
away from all his wins. That would be like Congress deciding after it had been adjudicated that

16

recompense was due and compensation was due for the violation of regulations or
qualifications that Obama, Pelosi, and or Reid were to be impeached for their individual actions
of covering up the fraud convicted as criminal actions upon the public, but more especially to
the one in the race who stood to gain had their actions been stopped. It is actually
presumptuous of the Court to assume Congress would take any action at all regardless of an
award to the Plaintiff, but the allegations of violations of law or dirty play none the less can be
ascertained and have been with the filing of the complaint to the Court and the Court upon the
standard of laws asserted, with the expert witness provided of a Sheriff’s Report, must consider
the allegations as not frivolous, malicious, delusional, or fantastic, but rather a service for the
public trust.
The court in its review does acknowledge that Plaintiff sought relief in the form of a court order
initiating criminal prosecution against Defendants for the alleged Sherman Act (Clayton Act)
violations 10-7-2014 Memorandum pg. 4 second paragraph last sentence but failed to stipulate
that was based on expert testimony from a Sheriff’s Investigation Report and rather leaves the
alleged violations as action Plaintiff simply suggested on his own discretion alone without any
law authorities report.
The simplicity of the Plaintiff’s arguments seem to have escaped the reality of the Court in the
assimilation that during a campaign for President the Defendants acting as one under multiple
Corporations knowingly violated the qualifications or regulations of the race set forth by a
standard of law held in the United States Constitution and Acts of Congress and further backed
up as identity fraud and forgery criminally asserted by a Sheriff’s Report that involves facts that

17

are witnessed by expert testimonies. Further what is so fantastic about Barack Obama actually
being also legally known as Barry Soetoro whose name was never on the Ballot who has an
Indonesian citizenship legally recognized on school records? The U.S. Court does not even
recognize the title of the suit as it is written wiping out Barry Soetoro as recognition of the
same person as Barack Obama. The Court is not prohibited from such as reasonable fact.
According to Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro’s own testimony his father was not a Citizen at
the time of his birth and that fact alone disqualifies Obama as a natural born Citizen because if
honoring his father’s citizenship inherited at birth Obama has a reasonable claim on a Kenyan
or British Citizenship also besides the one he has from his adopted father Lolo Soetoro from
Indonesia. These claims of citizenship indeed honor the fathers of Barack Obama aka Barry
Soetoro and it is only the disrespect of the fathers that this Court ignores the facts that Obama
has these. In honoring the fathers, Plaintiff’s claim asserts these differing citizenships are
impossible to trash so dishonorably and represent in the least international insult and at the
most identity fraud upon the Office of the President prohibiting dual citizenship of any kind
from occupation of that office. That’s why it’s the United States of America under the umbrella
of the United States Constitution as a Republic for which we stand.
For all the above reasons Plaintiff/Appellant myself as Mr. Judy acting pro se, feels that the
Court has really been the one who has acted rather maliciously towards the law and the facts,
not comprehended the losses, time, talent, and fortunes that have been trampled and run over
demanding redress as a grievance.

18

SUMMARY
Plaintiff did run for President, his campaigns were damaged by Barack Obama’s unlawful entry
with deception and forged and fraudulent identification papers according to a Sheriff’s
Department Investigation Report. The Corporate Deeds of the DNC and Obama’s Campaign OFA
combined in pushing Obama’s entry in 2008 and 2012 with several documents elaborating the
collusion of the cartel formed in fact pushing the competition out and taking the Office of the
President in the electoral process. Plaintiff has made every effort he could in 2008 as an
independent and 2012 as a Democratic Presidential Candidate with immediate standing not
having to obtain a parties nomination before challenging to oppose Obama with Ballot
Challenges recorded. Plaintiff/Appellant would not have got in the Presidential Race if a
‘natural born Citizen’ has been represented by Republicans and Democrats. Because of U.S.
Sen. Res. 511 collusion occurred between Republicans and Democrats really prohibiting either
party from objecting to the other in the Constitution’s regulation or qualification. Thus it should
not surprise the Court that only an independent with standing with the Constitution would be
damaged to the point of filing a complaint for damages and if the Court will not recognize the
Independent political affiliations the Court not only disenfranchises Plaintiff but well over 51%
of America that now identifies themselves as independent voters not beholden to either
Republicans or Democrats.
CONCLUSION & REQUEST OF THE COURT
1-Appellant would like the U.S. Circuit Court to Order the District Court to recognize the
Default Certificate that Plaintiff was due in the first place, because the Defendant’s were
19

properly served just like John McCain was served in Judy v. McCain Nevada District 2008 01162
at their headquarters in the State the complaint was filed in by a representative who accepted
the service as an officer who had been deemed responsible for receiving such and in fact did
not respond to the Court’s 20 Day Issued Summons witnessed as being served by the Server
and also by Affidavit of the Plaintiff who witnessed it as a Second. These are three testimonies
in a Court of law stating the same thing that the Complaint and 20 Days summons were served
upon two corporations by an officer entrusted to take a contribution and receive legal service
of either corporation located in the same building and that the Court make up an Order
demanding Payment to the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s appropriate Corporate Officers and
serve that to the Defendants’.
2- If by any reason the Circuit Court is unwilling to recognize the Default as entitled by law
to the Plaintiff, that the Court remand the case back to the U.S. District with an Order that the
Final Judgment of “Frivolousness” be over turned and the U.S. District Court bound to certify
the nine 2nd Amended 20 Day Summons along with the Complaints and serve those
expeditiously upon the Defendant’s.
3- That the U.S. Court be ordered to convene a Criminal Proceeding that would adopt the
allegations of wrong doing specifically upon Defendant’s Actions relayed in the Complaint by
the Plaintiff lawfully, in a timely way according to proper procedure if the Court were referred
any illegal activity that would relieve or qualify as a misprision charge.
Signed and Submitted this 2nd Day of November, 2014.
Cody Robert Judy / Appellant /pro se .

__/s/Cody Robert Judy_________
20

Certificate of Word Count
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
NO. 14 __________ Cody Robert Judy v. Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro et al.
I, Cody Robert Judy hereby certify this CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 28.1(e)
or 32(a) that this BRIEF does comply with type volume limitations does not exceed 16,500
words, complies with type face and all requirements.
Prepared by:

.

__/s/Cody Robert Judy_____________
Cody Robert Judy /Appellant pro se

Certificate of Service
I, Cody Robert Judy, do hereby affirm and certify that a true and correct copy of the BRIEF IN
SUPPORT and the NOTICE OF APPEAL has been mailed first class postage prepaid to
Defendant’s at the address upon which the Defendant’s were served at :
[Barack Obama aka Barry Soetoro et. al. Case No. 1:14-cv-93 TS @ 825 North 300 West Suite
C400, Salt Lake City, Utah 84103]
This _3rd__ Day of November, 2014.

__/s/Cody Robert Judy_____________
Cody Robert Judy / Appellant/pro se

21

APPENDIX DECISIONS
DOCKET STATMENT
08-26-2014 2 PAGES
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR DEFAULT
ORDER OF JUDGMENT

09-09-2014 2 PAGES
NOTICE: MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

09-16-2014 1 PAGE
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE FOR DECISION

10-07-2014 5 PAGES
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SERVICE OF
PROCESS

10-09-2014 1 PAGE
JUDGEMENT IN CIVIL CASE

22